When I look at supporting studies for "nutrition" related topics on this
board, most are about cancer "risk" and not cancer "progression".
Is there any reason we are conflating these two terms? It seems to me
most people here already have prostate cancer, and would be interested
in studies dealing with cancer progression.
Yes, that is in my opinion a good observation.
It seems to me for example anti-oxidants prevent aptosis of cells and presumably prevent cancer.
But if you have cancer perhaps you want oxidative radicals and you want aptosis of cancer cells.
You got this backwards. Preventing apoptosis causes cancer - it doesn't prevent cancer. Apoptosis of cancer cells hardly ever occurs - that's one of the reasons why it's cancer.
"anti-oxidants prevent aptosis of cells and presumably prevent cancer"
While it was never logical to me, isn't that the reason, or one of the reasons, why people promote anti-oxidants?
"Apoptosis of cancer cells hardly" that is why we would want to encourage it and therefore not use anti-oxidants, correct?
Yes, antioxidants defeat the body's primary defense against cancer. I have no idea why anyone promotes any supplement that hasn't proved safe or effective - but one sees a lot of that on this and other internet sites. BTW - a good editorial in MedpageToday about the dangers of supplement use and the multi-million dollar industry behind it:
"The simple answer as to why it happened -- MONEY.
Former Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, was the author of the DSHEA law in 1994 and profited greatly for it. His family is invested in supplement companies, including Herbalife, among others. Between 1989 and 1994, Herbalife International gave Hatch $49,250; MetaboLife, $31,500; and Rexall Sundown, Nu Skin International, and Starlight International a total of $88,550. In addition, according to his financial disclosures for 2003, Hatch owned 35,621 shares of Pharmics, a Utah-based nutritional supplement company. In the early 1990s, Hatch's son Scott began working for lobbying groups representing vitamin and supplement makers. Kevin McGuiness, Hatch's former chief of staff, was also a lobbyist for the industry.
The supplement industry has thrived in the state of Utah, and thanks to Senator Hatch, the industry has grown unchecked -- all while patients continue to be misled and possibly harmed. In fact, the corridor of I-15 in Utah is known as the silicon valley of the supplement industry."
medpagetoday.com/blogs/camp...
Yes, one of my favorite Senators. LOL
"Risk factors" have to with prevention wheras "progression" has to do with existing disease and its treatment.
While certain dietary items may be risk factors, not eating them or eating other things are not treatments.
Specifically which "dietary items" have been proven to be definite risk factors ?? I mean eating/drinking these items will definitely increase ones prostate cancer ??
There are not many foods that have evidence to support an increased
risk of cancer. Far less than are speculated by many people.
The strongest evidence is for alcohol, a known carcinogen and risk factor for many cancers. Processed meats are also a risk factor, but not a cause for certain cancers.
Personally, I don't think the risk difference is worth elimination of these things. I have reduced my intake of alcohol, but still have an occasional beer or glass of wine. My opinion is you have to balance the quality of life issues with the small risk associated with these things.
Thank you, gregg57, for that very reasonable reply. It is the reply of a person devoid of superstition, only interested in the actual truth. Thanks again, much obliged to you. Cheers !!
Cancer has left many people feeling like they've lost control over their lives. I think the truth is that most of these diet and supplement beliefs are an attempt to regain that lost sense of control.
Very insightful comment, gregg57, thank you very much.
In addition to the feeling of loss of control, I think, is the feeling of utter desperation. People will do almost anything (however irrational) to hopefully try and live a little longer.
I think that's true.
"Is there any reason we are conflating these two terms?" Who's this "we"?
Because it takes diet a lifetime to have an effect on incidence, it is unlikely to have any effect in the short-term. Studies (like PLCO) that track people through incidence and progression to death from prostate cancer would probably take about 20-30 years of follow-up to show any effect. Studies that start with men who already have advanced PC, are very hard to recruit for, and often fail to meet recruitment goals due to the low incidence of advanced PC in the population.
If a substance has been found to cause PC, like Vitamin E, it is likely that it will encourage progression too and should be avoided by men with advanced PC. Why would anyone risk it?
Yes, if something is a risk factor then it may also encourage progression, I would also not want to risk it even though there may not be any proof. The argument going the other way is not as straightforward. If something is not a risk factor (milk, sugar etc.) for the entire population of men it does not mean that for the population of men with advanced PC this same thing does not promote progression.
Well said FSB12. The low to no milk, sugar was part of the Ornish study (2005),
where "progression" was the subject, and not cancer risk. Still an interesting read
after all these years.
My greatest fear is that Big Pharma will take over the supplements industry and we will be paying hundreds of dollars for supplements that now cost but few dollars. Not mention we may need a doctors prescription to purchase them. I don't want to see the big pharmaceutical companies take over supplements.
From a pharmaceutical standpoint, there's a reason why supplements aren't regulated by the federal government. I wouldn't worry too much about this.
From a financial standpoint the Pharmaceutical industry would love to take over the supplements market. They have already tried to push through legislation to do just that.
Oversight is a contentious issue, of course. But personally, I see distinct differences in the products of Big Pharma and Big Herbal. My supplements are not necessarily inexpensive and I wouldn't like to see their prices rise further, which they would with more bureaucratic oversight. But when there's too much month at the end of the money, you can always drop your vitamin intake. It's a completely different story when you look at whether or not you want to afford your next shot of Lupron.
No drug insurance?
I'm not sure what you mean by drug insurance.
We've considered every potential risk, except the risks of avoiding all risks.
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Friday 07/19/2019 2:38 PM DST
Mediterranean diet may decrease risk of prostate cancer progression for men on active surveillance
Statins and prostate cancer
High risk vs. aggressive cancer
repost - cancer progression - next steps?
Alcohol Study - lower risk of PCa progression 
